Tired of No Lighting Data!!!

[stereomandan]

I'm trying to compare MH and PC bulb efficiency. What I would love to see is spectral analysis of a MH 10K bulb vs. a PC 10K bulb. Second, Lumens per watt of MH and PC. Third, PAR of PC bulbs vs. MH. I can't find this info anywhere! How frustrating.

People always say that MH is better than PC, but without data to back it up, how can that be proven?

I see spectral analysis on custom sea life's site of the MH and PC bulbs, but no lumens or PAR data.

If anyone has a link to any of this data, I would MUCH appreciate it. It has to be out there somewhere, I just can't find it.

I've only found one or two references after two days of searching the net.

VHO info would also be nice if you don't have the other data. I'm almost positive that I read that 96W CSL 10K bulbs are 8200 lumens and the 96W blue bulbs are 2600 lumens, but I can't find the data anymore.

Thanks,
Dan

[NRA4EVR]

taging along

[coralreefengr]

Hmmm...maybe you want to buy a lux meter and do some research. I'm sure there's lots of people out there curious about this but not motivated to do anything about it. You sound pretty motivated.

[brianlena2000]

People always say that MH is better than PC, but without data to back it up, how can that be proven?

Can't help you with the data. I have seen par results for various mh setups but I haven't seen any direct comparison.

Something to keep in mind though is that many of the people on here who have mh have had or still have other types of lighting. So when all of these people are saying it is better there is something to be said for that by itself (most, like myself, have nothing to gain by saying it is better). For those that have used both types of lighting there is usually no doubt. I know that with myself the difference it very obvious. For instance, I have personally seen clams do well under halides and then be transferred to a different tank with pc's and slowly fade away (even though the watts per gallon was greater with the pc's).

Basically, what I am trying to say is that most of the people recommending halides are doing it on experience. IMO you can't get much better than that for proof.

[stereomandan]

Thanks for your replies.

I want apples to apples tests. A lux meter unfortunately can't answer my question because lighting spectrum is also needed.

The concept of transferring a creature from MH to PC and having it do poorly is not a good example in my opinion. If this was on the same tank, and just the lighting was switched, I could understand, but anytime you switch tanks there are way too many variables. Maybe someone who had the same wattage of VHO or PC and then switched to the same amount of MH could help.(with the about the same mix of daylight/actinic)

The engineering side of me just can't let this issue go. There is just no data. I've seen the MH comparisons, and they are great, but there is nothing to compare it to VHO or PC. I don't want to change my lighting based on subjective data.

I'm still hoping someone has info...

Dan

[lebowski]

Is this what you mean? This might help.

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/l...escent%20Bulbshttp://www.coralreefecosystems.com/ltg_bulb_color.htm#Single%20Metal%20Halide%20only%20--%20No%20Supplemental%20Fluorescent%20Bulbs

[lebowski]

click the first one. It has mh and vho combo comparisons. is that sort of what you want?

[stereomandan]

Thanks Lebowaski. It is very good data, but it is missing the key factor. The lighting technical data is the link I'm talking about from that page. It's one of the few good results I had seen during my searching. The comparison of VHO to PC is great, but it doesn't compare them to MH. It does show PC to be better watt per watt than VHO though.

The pics of all the lighting combinations are awesome. The person that did all those pics is great. If I was in the market for a MH bulb right now, those would be very good pics to look at.

Dan

[Reefs1]

Don't waste too much time on this, in the end you will realize Halides are far better and pound for pound cheaper in every way. Assuming that is what you are trying accomplish. I have done a pretty accurate test by upgrading 130 watts of PC to 150 watts of Halides. Corals and inverts respond better to halides, grow better, and look better. Halides just seem to "punch" the light into the coral much better than a flurescent tube can, even though they are fairly decent these days..Also, emperical evidence and stats can all be subjective so be careful where your data comes from. I agree with experience too, although I apprecite data for what it is. Unfornately, reef keeping is not so Black and White, most of us live in the Grey area and learn from trial and error. But we gains mounds of experience!

[stereomandan]

Reefs,

What was your combo of bulbs with the PC, and what was it after you changed to MH? Did you suppliment the MH with actinic?

Everything you said was subjective, except for the wattage on the bulbs.

Dan

[Reefs1]

I had a 10k bulb and a 50/50 10k/Actinic prior to the switch to 150 AB Aqualine 10K bulb with actinic supplementation. Without getting into a diatribe and listing all the data which I do not have, I will say there is a difference. The quality of light in Halides is far superior to PC's. Listen to Corals if not people, they grow better and look better under halide as opposed to PC. PC's are good don't get me wrong, but corals simply live and grow slowly (depending on what they are) under them, but they don't thrive. It is like the difference between a Pub and a Nightclub. Under Halides the corals are partying and having a dandy ol' time, under PC's they're just chilling watching TV on a Saturday night having a beer and some wings. Both are fun, depending on the mood you are in. But I have tried both and prefer/recommend the equivalent or greater wattage halides any day of the week.

[stereomandan]

I like your analogies Reefs. I gotta say though that your comparison is unfair. A 150W MH daylight bulb with actinic suppliments(how much?) is nothing like your PC setup that had 98 watts of daylight with 32w of blue.

I'd love to just follow your advice and be happy, but you aren't showing me any comparable data.

By the way, I can show you corals that have thrived in my PC setup. I have growth sequence shots. My squamosa did awesome as well. He went from 1.5-3.5 inches in 5 months. I know he is a lower light clam though.

I've seen 250W MH bulbs that don't look as bright as two 96W PC's, but I have no data to prove it.

Dan

[Reefs1]

I guess it is not exact enough for what you are trying to accomplish so I agree. I will look through my log book for the past 2 years and see if I have an data that might interest you.

Those 250w bulbs you mentioned may have been running on an electronic balllust which typically run the bulbs at 25% less lumens. Hence they most of them state they are more efficient and run cooler and quieter, extend bulb life etc. They don't all generate the same power. Keep this in mind when asking detailed questions about Halide to PC's comparison. Ballust type and manufaturer is vital. Magnetics run halides hot and to their full potential.

Your squamosa is one of the easier clams, and I too have an easy clam, a deresa that went from PC to Halide and he really made a pretty transformation in colors (fairly brown to yellow/green), and it grows like a weed. Soon I will have to move him. My situation made a believer out of me. I liked my PC's very much and plan on keeping them for a 10 gallon I have set up. They were great to learn with low heat, cheap etc.

[stereomandan]

Reefs,

Thanks. Any more info would be a help.

Yes, the squamosa is an easy clam. I agree.

Dan

[Cyberchef]

Dan I have a 55 RR that had 520 W of PC lighting, basically 50% 10,000K and 50% Actinic, over the tank (16 hrs/day total). 120W actinic 1 hr, then 1 hourlater 1 50/50 would kickin, then 1 hour later 1 10,000K, then 1 hour later 1 50/50... They went off in the reverse sequence. They came on at 10am and went off at 1am. All of my corals and clams have done great under it. Good growth and really nice coloring. PC's were 4"off of the water

I decided to add MH to test the theory that MH lighting is better and to see if I could get even better coral growth. I removed 260W of the PC and added 2- 250W 6500K Hamilton MH lights driven by Ice Cap HQI ballasts. I also raised my hood 7" to keep the lights away from the water surface for heat reasons and because of salt spray, bulbs are approximately 7" off the water surface. The 260W of PC I kept are 130W actinic and 130W 50/50, the 130W 50/50 will get switched over to actinics as soon as the bulbs arrive (CSL is replacing someof the bulbs for me due to the bases seperating fromthe bulbs), this was also part of the reason I switched. I got tired of the bulbs only lasting 3-4 months before the bases would seperate.

This was a little over a month ago. I started with 3 hrs of MH and have slowly bumped that up, 30 minutes at a time, to 12 hrs (currently). I have to admit that I was very skeptical about this, I had the MH ballasts and lights for 2 months before I finally made the switch. I also have to admit now that my corals aredoing much better, better/faster growth as well as better polyp extension. My clams are doing the same, I have noticed no real difference in them (although I did have a 5" Derasa loose it's hinge, that was 2-3 weeks ago and it is still doing good, I just had to prop it up between 2 pieces of LR, hopefully it will r3epair itself)

I also have 3 other tanks tied into this system, 1 refugium and 2 frag/grow out tanks.

refugium: 24"W x 16"D x 12"H 130W PC 1 50/50 and 1 10,000K

frag tank 1: 21"W x 16"D x 9"H 130W PC 1 50/50 and 1 10,000K

Frag tank 2: 21"W x 16"D x 12"H this one is getting 1 250W MH 6500K Iwasaki and 130W PC either 50/50 or all actinic

We'll see what the long term effects are...

[stereomandan]

cyberchef,

Thank you the information on your tank. WOW, 520W of PC over a 55g. That's the most I've heard of yet. Were the bulbs practically touching each other? I had the problems you did with the bulb base seperating, but once I secured the end cap wires to the canopy all that went away. Your system sounds very nice by the way.

Anyways, unfortunately your situation is exactly what I run into every time. See, no one seems to upgrade watt for watt from PC to MH. You added more than 50% more light to your tank in the transition from PC to MH. I'm sure it looks great. I am not anti MH in any way. I love the glimmer lines. It's just that when you hear, "I used to have PC and switched to MH and now it's better" it's rarely ever a fair comparison because of coarse it will be better if you double the light output to the tank. This is what leads to so much disinformation. This is the exact reason I want data like I am looking for. I can't find it. If I can't find it, I bet others have a hard time finding it also. To me all of these claims are meaningless without the data to back it up.

My BIG question is whether or not I can keep acros or maximas in my setup. I'm going to to try a montipora first and see how it goes. I have one daylight 96W PC and two 95W VHO actinics over a 38g. I would switch out one actinic for a 50/50 to help with PAR if needed.

Dan

[mbort]

Stereo,

One thing that is relatively untouched in the lighting issue is the importance of good reflectors, and the increased amount of PAR added into a tank with a good reflector (as opposed to a crappy reflector). My point is .. you said that you have seen 250w halides that did not look as bright as PC, and I have also, but when I looked into the system, it usually had bulbs that had no reflectors (or very poor ones).

Sorry I don't have any hard data to offer, just wanted to contribute something to consider.

I personally have seen (generally higher light) acros and maximas wither away under PC lighting, even when placed near the top of the tank and the lights were less than 4 inches from the water surface. Then again, I've personally killed acros under my 250 HQI that could not handle the light. My point being, there is such a wide range of light intensities that SPS and clams come from that I'm sure there are species you could have under PC lighting, assuming they are chosen wisely (and you have an idea from where they came)

[stereomandan]

Thanks mbort, Yes, good reflectors can place a huge difference in light spread and light intensity. I agree.

Your last paragraph deals with my biggest frustration. You’ve seen acros and maximas wither in a PC tank, and acros burn in a MH tank. O.k., understood. Was it the same tank? That is where the frustration comes in. There is no way to compare these unless it was the same tank with the same amount of PC and MH light. The simple truth is that two different people with the exact same MH lighting could have the same coral die in one tank and thrive in the other based on other variables; water quality, feeding, dissolved O2 level… so comparing two different tanks with PC and MH lighting has no basis for comparison.

The problem is that no one has data that can show that PC is far inferior to MH. For smaller tanks like mine, it’s difficult to fit a good MH reflector in it along with actinics to suppliment. Spider reflectors won’t even fit without being cut.

This is why we need good objective data on PC and VHO bulbs, not just MH. In a larger tank, I would go MH without question because of the space available in the canopy, higher wattage available in MH, and the need for light coverage, but for smaller tanks PC and VHO really make sense.

Dan

[Gene Wilders hair]

you cant go by how bright it "looks" to youre eye -that is just about the worst measurement of light.

imo the real difference between halide and flourescent lighting is the glitterlines -the light is magnified like 10x(or something like that anyway) so it can punch deep into the tank and coral tissue .

same thing the sun does in the natural enviroment

flourescent lights cast a dull dead light that doesnt penetrate as deep.jmo

[Flanders]

I think the real deciding factor isn't as much intensity, watt for watt, as it is replacement cost. Replacing five 96 watt PCs every 6-8 months compared to two 250-watt halides once a year, there is just no comparison. Even if the PCs were just as intense and useful in spectrum for coral growth, who could afford the replacement cost? It's just not practical. The same way MH is not practical in many applications, like for small tanks as you pointed out, stereomandan.

However, I would be interested to see the data you seek. I would be more interested, however, to see the same comparison of the new 6500k T5 bulbs with 6500k MH. Each with the same type of actinics to reduce variables.

[picassomike]

Dan,you must also consider the equipment being used.Different brands of bulbs,ballasts run differently.A 400w MH bulb will usually give different specs when ran on different ballasts.Which brands of equipment must also be considered.Lets say you want to light a 7' x 2' tank.And you put 400 watts of PC lighting on.That 400w of PC is scattered all through out the 7'x2' area.Then you add a 400w MH,that MH is good for a 2'x2' area(3'x2' if using good reflectors).You have 400watts lighting a 2'x2' area as apposed to a 7'x2' area.I do remember an article comparing the 3,MH,VHO,and PC,but that was a while ago.I knew I should have saved it.I remember it comparing PAR and lumens,among other things.It also stated the brand equipment used.I know the order was MH,VHO,PC,don't remember any specs.The article could have been deleted by know,I know it wasn't on RC.

[Cyberchef]

Originally posted by stereomandan
cyberchef,

Thank you the information on your tank. WOW, 520W of PC over a 55g. That's the most I've heard of yet. Were the bulbs practically touching each other?

Anyways, unfortunately your situation is exactly what I run into every time. See, no one seems to upgrade watt for watt from PC to MH. You added more than 50% more light to your tank in the transition from PC to MH.

I used 65W bulbs mounted end to end and 4 wide (total of 8 bulbs)... They were pretty close, the end caps almost touched. My wires are fastened to the hood, at least as much as they can be, and they still keep seperating. CSL is replacing the bulbs and sending a recall for the old bulbs to try and figure out why this is happeneing.

Actually I went from 520W to 760W, an increase of 240W, slightly less than a 50% increase. Even when the MH were only coming on for 3 hrs per day, I was seeing greatly improved polyp extension. The corals were extending thier polyps out almost twice as far for the MH lights.

What is the actual water depth in your tank? My 55 is about 13", because of the DSB/plenum combination. I personally feel that your going to be at the minimum of light needed for keeping a Maxima, although you should be fine for the majority of SPS/acros as long as you place themhigher ion the tank. Montiporas should do well, they tend to need less light than some of the others. My Montipora Digitata have grown exceptionally well under PC lighting.

Here's a pic of my canopy before the MH lights,

[Cyberchef]

Here is a pic of the bookcase

[joefish]

You can not copair the two on an equal basis so forget about it . Put a 350 motor in a camaro and the same in a suburbin which will win a race .
Or look at it this way put 4 40 w bulbs in a 12'x12' room then compair it to 1 150w halogen bulb who do you think will win that battle .
the power of pc's or vho's are distributed through the size of the bulb covering more distance . the power of a MH is ditributed througha 2" piece in the bulb so the concentration is much greater and brighter from that point . That is why a good reflector is more important on a mh for even light distribution .
I hope my rambling helped .

[stereomandan]

Whew, lot's of things to answer.

Gene Wilders Hair, yes comparing bulbs by site is very wrong. I know this. That's why I'm asking for data. I shouldn't have brought it up, but it was just something I notice subjectively. I would like to see that data that shows that glimmer lines magnify the intensity by 10X. I've heard this before, and don't necessarily doubt it, but that is how rumors start.

Flanders, I bought my daylight 96W PC's from www.hellolights.com for $28 each. That's $140 for 5. I think two 250MH bulbs would be about the same as that. Anyways, I can't fit that many over my tank so it's a non-issue. It's a good point though.

picassomike, ballasts make a difference but not as mush as you might think. Check out this article.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/...omparison.html

Cyberchef, great info. Thanks.

joefish, That's funny considering I DO drive a Camaro Z28 with the 350 motor, and yes it smokes a suburban. I'm not sure what your point was about the different bulbs though, but a 100W standard incadescent bulb is 1690 lumens. A 40W kitchen and bath NO flourescent bulb is 3200 lumens. So which would look brighter? The flourescent bulbs. Is this what you are trying to say. It came across to me the other way in your post. I agree that a good reflector is needed for MH, but if flourescent do this inherantly, why is that bad?

Dan